Michael Castle

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me just make very clear with respect to what we have just heard that the whole reason that the deal fell apart with respect to the labor-HHS-education bill had nothing to do with the education dollars. Let me make it also clear again what I have said about three times already today, but it does not seem to sink in. That is that the amount of money that is in this legislation, the $1.3 billion, is the exact same amount that is being talked about on the other side of the aisle. Let me make it finally very clear, to the gentlewoman from Ohio as well as others, that the increase in education funding in the appropriation bill that funds K through 12 education this year is 20 percent, 20 percent, which is probably the highest percentage increase education has ever received in the United States of America. That has been a combination of Republicans and Democrats. I am not saying Republicans deserve sole credit for that. Let me just repeat, finally, over the last 5 years that increase has been 8.2 percent. The school construction program was never discussed before, but it is actually in the Republican labor-HHS-education bill. There is no ignoring education on this side of the aisle in any way whatsoever.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just would like to put all of this in perspective. First, this is the fourth time that we have argued almost the exact same language on this floor. It is one of these situations in which it has all been said; but not everybody has said it, except that everyone is saying it more than one time at this point now as well. That is fine. I think it is a very important discussion. I do not mind that particularly, except that we are sort of plowing ground that has already been plowed. There are certain basic facts that need to be pointed out, and I pointed out some of those at the beginning; but I just want to reiterate these facts. One is that the amount of money that we are talking about in this particular motion to instruct conferees is the grand total of $1.3 billion, a very large sum of public money that we have in the Federal Government to expend on this problem. But in conjunction with how much it would take in order to solve all of the problems of school repairs and construction, which is a minimum $300 billion today, and I have seen estimates as high as $500 billion, $1.3 billion is not very much. At the most, it is a little more than one- third of 1 percent, and if the numbers are higher than we think it is at $300 billion, it drops substantially below that. So we are talking about a fairly small contribution to the solution in this, setting aside of course the Rangel-Johnson thing which, hopefully, also will be resolved at some point. Now, we in the Federal Government only put in about 6 or 7 percent of all of the dollars that go into public education in this country, and most of the money which we put in goes to specific areas that we have carved out, such as educating or helping to educate children with disabilities, for example, or individuals who are from poorer backgrounds and need additional help in a program called Title 1. That is what we do. We have not in the past really done a lot with respect to construction. But I think we agree, certainly we as Republicans agree, we have put it in the Labor-HHS-Education appropriation bill the same amount that we are talking about here today, so there is agreement on that. A couple of other facts, for whatever they are worth. In the last 5 years, under the tutelage of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) in the Committee on Appropriations, the contribution to education by the Federal Government in the budget has been 8.2 percent, on average. In the 5 years before that which was under the control of the Democrats, it was 6 percent per year, not the 8.2 percent it is now. In this year's appropriation bill, which is a key appropriation bill that we are all waiting for around here and the reason that we debate this every afternoon, this particular issue, because it is not done, the increase for this year is 20 percent, which is a recognition I think that everyone is becoming more in tune to the fact that this is the number one issue as far as the country is concerned, a grand total for K through 12 of about $45 billion, a substantial donation to local and State governments. So we are not talking about any differences in dollars, and we are not talking about the ability to fix up all of the problems of all of the schools of all of us who are going to stand up and say our schools have problems. That is a recognized fact. We have many good educators here, starting with the chairman, who was a superintendent, and two gentlemen here have spoken, North Carolina and Georgia, who were the heads of education in their States. I was a governor of my State and I saw the same thing. I went into every single school in my district as well, but I also fought to get some referenda passed and did other things, because I think we have to do it on a local basis. There are slight differences, not in dollars, but in how the money would be used. In the appropriation bill which we are discussing now, before we get to the motion to instruct conferees, we as Republicans have said, let us give flexibility with respect to this money in terms of what they are going to be able to do with it. Let the local and the State people be able to make the decision. And within the Democrat proposal that is in the motion to instruct conferees, I would describe it, and some may disagree with this, but I would describe it as being more rigid in terms of how that money would be used without as much flexibility. There are schools in this country, and I just was to two of them in the last few months in Delaware, two brand-new schools. They do not need construction money or repair money, they do not even need to reduce class size, but they would like to prepare their teachers better if they could, so perhaps they would like to use the money otherwise. My own view point of that is if we could put money in title VI, which is the flexibility of a block grant, we should do that as often as we can here in Washington, because I think it gives our local districts the flexibility in turn to be able to make the decisions to help with the education there. So that is a difference perhaps in philosophy, but I am afraid that what we are talking about here on the floor of the House of Representatives is unfortunately the politics of all of this; and to me, there is not a lot of difference between the politics of it; It is just a slight philosophical difference, as we have here. I hope it gets worked out. I hope it gets worked out in the Labor-HHS-Education appropriation bill and maybe eventually in this tax bill as far as the Rangel-Johnson proposal is concerned. But the bottom line is that we are arguing about something which hopefully would be helpful but cannot go as far as some people would like in terms of what we would do with respect to our schools. Also, I do not think the Federal government could afford to get into $300 or $400 billion dollars. I think it is very wrong for us to stand up and suggest that we are going to solve the problems of the schools. Where there are trailers now, there are probably going to be trailers later. Unfortunately, when there are schools not in good repair, maybe they will still stay not in good repair. But I think we can help in some way so maybe we can move in that direction. That is where we are. It is a relatively minor circumstance we are dealing with here, but it is a major problem out there in terms of what has to be done. What I really hope is this, that we do pass something. I do not really care if Republicans or Democrats get credit for it. I hope we pass something. I hope we can use that as the initiation or the instigation of additional local and State money being put into schools to fix up schools for our children, because I think we all agree that educating our children is as important as anything we can do in this country. Obviously, we need good facilities if we are going to do that. I just wanted to make those basic points as we go through and continue with this argument. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the committee.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I have watched this debate taking place on the floor. This certainly is deja vu. This is about at least, I guess, the third time that we have had the exact same debate on the same issues. There are a couple of points that are very clear to me. One is that there are, I think, enormous problems with respect to school repairs, school construction across the United States of America. We have a growing population of school-age youth in our country, and I think we do need to address that. As a matter of fact, I think Republicans and Democrats agree on that. As a matter of fact, I think in terms of the dollars that are being allocated to this, there is agreement as well, particularly on the grant side of it, of the $1.3 billion. The basic difference is how is that going to be done. Is it given to the local districts for flexibility, which is what the Republicans believe? Or should it be given directly from the Federal Government to wherever the schools are, which is what the Democrats believe? There is not that much disagreement. The other point is this: when we talk about that extent of money, we are talking about a very small percentage, less than one half of 1 percent, I think about a third of 1 percent of the total needs which are out there, even by the most minimal standards. So I think it is somewhat unfair for any of us to stand here or for the President, for all that matters, to stand before the people of America and say that this is going to solve the problems of school construction. Hopefully, we can work something out eventually, and it is being worked on. It is in the language of the Labor-HHS Education bill that may come back before us; and when we do, we can help with the problem. But it is a fairly small contribution to the solution of the problem. I think it is something that we should do. The agreement is relatively sound. The disagreements are relatively minor, and we should go forward. I guess until that time we will play politics with it and continue ahead. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of the conference report for the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2001. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon), are to be commended for the outstanding leadership they have provided to the intelligence community during these difficult times. I would also like to recognize the efforts of our distinguished vice chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), who will be rotating off our committee under our rules. His insights into the technical and distinctly military programs within the intelligence community have been very helpful for me in understanding our future needs. Likewise, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations, his explanations of the resource challenges facing the community are invaluable. I thank him for his service to our Nation's security. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence, I understand the critical need to invest in and modernize our technical intelligence systems. Although the investment in our intelligence community's infrastructure had declined over the years, and the strains were clearly showing through, we have responded in the past 6 years by making some very difficult but sound choices to ensure there are adequate future technical resources. This year's conference report continues to address some very substantial problems, but this is still only a beginning. We understand that providing the country with the capabilities it deserves and needs will take years and will require continued support from Congress. Mr. Speaker, this conference report also provides our senior policymakers with sufficient capabilities and tools to advance our foreign policy, to enable strong leadership and proactive diplomacy, and to improve our military's advantage over its adversaries, if and when needed. I am also pleased that we have incorporated a provision into this year's conference report to address a concern related to the National Reconnaissance Office and its launch program. This was the outcome of a series of meetings, briefings, and hearings for which I personally devoted a great deal of time. This provision has many benefits. One, it will improve the NROs and our ability to have insight and perform oversight into contracting launch services; two, it will allow us to hold the NROs more accountable for their activities; and, three, it could lead to significant savings for the government and American people. I want to address an issue that has been raised regarding this important provision, and I want to make something very clear. There is nothing in this provision that precludes the Air Force and the NRO from continuing to work in a very close partnership. This includes continuing cooperation on the wide range of launch service activities and facilities that they share, as well as continuing potential block purchases for launch vehicles if the NRO believes this is in the best interest of the government. Now, however, with this provision, the NRO will have insight into and better control of launch contracts that have not been there before. We expect that this added responsibility will ultimately result in a stronger partnership between these two organizations. It will certainly provide better budgeting of scarce intelligence resources. Mr. Speaker, the conference report for the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2001 is a responsible, reasonable, and appropriate request to fund our Nation's national security needs. The President, our policymakers, our military, and the people of the United States deserve nothing less. I ask the Members of the House to give it their full support.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the bankruptcy reform conference report. This legislation has been a long time coming. Since 1980, bankruptcies have risen 400 percent, imposing a heavy burden on American families. Some estimate that bankruptcies cost each household $400 a year in the form of higher interest rates on their credit cards, car loans, school loans, and mortgages. The means testing approach championed by my colleague, George Gekas, will make bankruptcy abuse much harder in the future. Wealthy individuals who can hire savvy lawyers will no longer be able to game the bankruptcy system at the expense of the American consumer. What this bill says is that if you file bankruptcy, you will not be able to walk away from your debt if after all your reasonable monthly expenses are taken into account, you still have $166 in your pocket. If you are one of these people, then you will have to enter into an agreement to repay at least part of your debt in a 5 year plan, unless you can prove special circumstances to the judge. That is taking responsibility for your debt instead of imposing the cost on other consumers. I also want to thank Chairman Gekas for his support in helping my home State of Delaware receive an additional bankruptcy judgeship. As I testified before a joint House-Senate Judiciary Committee hearing earlier this year, Delaware's bankruptcy judges have the highest average bankruptcy caseloads in the Nation according to the U.S. judicial conference. The need for relief has reached critical levels and Chairman Gekas has been quick to recognize this. Recognition also must go to Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader Armey, who fulfilled their commitment to finding an appropriate vehicle that would allow the will of the House and the will of the Senate to proceed on this legislation. They did the honorable thing by taking our unrelated riders from both sides of the aisle and presenting this body with a clean bill for us to vote on. I thank them for their leadership. Finally, I want to thank Chairman Gekas for his support in removing a provision in the bill that would have eliminated a business' place of incorporation as an acceptable venue for filing a bankruptcy. Delaware's bankruptcy judges and the Delaware bar are among the finest in the Nation in resolving bankruptcies quickly, fairly and efficiently. We need to keep the courtroom doors open in Delaware. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this clean, balanced bankruptcy reform conference report.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, during my service as a Member of the House of Representatives, it has been my honor and privilege to rise and pay tribute to organizations and people who really make a difference in the Delaware community. Today, I rise to recognize Steve Austin, president of the Delaware Volunteer Firemen's Association (DVFA) and Eileen Doyle, president of the Ladies Auxiliary of the DVFA. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my fellow Delawareans I would like to honor these two outstanding individuals, not only for their tireless efforts on behalf of the citizens of the First State, but for their tremendous contributions to the DVFA and the Ladies Auxiliary of the DVFA. Volunteer fire departments are the cornerstone of our Nation's emergency response capability. Each year, fire kills over 6,000 people, injures about 28,000 more, and destroys more than $7 billion in property. Volunteer firefighters are among the most dedicated public servants. They are willing to put the safety and property of their neighbors ahead of their own on a daily basis. All too often, these brave men and women do not receive the recognition they deserve. Without the services of institutions, such as the DVFA and the Ladies Auxiliary, the number of fatalities would be even greater and the threat of fire and destruction to our communities could be even more devastating. In addition to battling fires, Delaware volunteer firefighters are involved in fire protection and safety as well as providing first aid and emergency resources in the event of major disasters. This type of dedication is rare. Steve Austin is a life member of the Aetna Hose and Ladder Company in Newark, DE. As a fire service advisor of the Congressional Fire Services Institute, Steve has worked tirelessly in these very halls on legislative issues that would improve training and emergency medical services for volunteer fire organizations throughout our country. Through his leadership, fire and emergency medical services have remained a vital and integral part of our community. For all of these national and local accomplishments, I was not at all surprised that the Congressional Fire Service Institute chose him as the Fire Service Person of the Year in 1996. Eileen Doyle has also played a critical role in keeping our communities safe. Whether it is as a member of the Brandywine Fire Company working on innovative and creative fundraising ventures or providing much needed assistance and comfort to those individuals devastated by the effects of Hurricane Floyd, Eileen Doyle's dedication to the fire service and our community shines as a bright beacon every day. The Ladies Auxiliary has a long and rich history and their dedication to the community is to be commended. I salute Steve Austin and Eileen Doyle for their efforts to keep the Volunteer Fire Association and Ladies Auxiliary a strong and vital part of Delaware. This week, the DVFA and the Ladies Auxiliary of the DVFA will gather at their 2000 Annual Conference to celebrate the anniversaries of safety and first aid to the people of Delaware. As a former Governor, I know first hand the important role that these dedicated and vital organizations play in recruiting and retaining young men and women in the public service arena. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have this privilege to extend my warmest wishes for a successful conference. I salute and thank them for their unwavering commitment to excellence and the example they set for all of us. Their efforts are deeply appreciated.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in strong support of H.R. 1248, legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. No woman should have to worry that she will be abused, but studies show that almost 1.9 million women are physically assaulted each year-- many times at the hands of a husband or boyfriend. Tragically, the correlation between domestic violence and child abuse is very high. Even if a child is not physically battered, he or she often does poorly in school, repeats the pattern of either victim or abuser as an adult and is more prone to a variety of emotional problems. Although the overall violent crime rate has dropped 27 percent from 52 to 38 incidents per 1,000 persons, there were more than 30 women and children that were killed in domestic violence related homicides over the last three years in my state of Delaware alone. For these women and children, it is clear that more needs to be done to ensure that our mothers, sisters, and daughters are safe in their homes and in their communities. I was proud to play a role in the passage of the original Violence Against Women Act, as part of the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994. A bipartisan coalition of members worked to break the stalemate on the Crime Bill and get it signed into law. A key part of that legislation was the Violence Against Women Act. It was enacted to authorize programs to support the prosecution of violent crimes against women, encourage arrests in domestic violence incidents, support rural domestic violence and child abuse enforcement, support rape prevention and education and provide funding for battered women's shelters. The legislation before us today renews and expands the original Act to include some new programs, which includes funds to help victims and their children flee domestic abuse and then move them from shelters to self-sufficiency. I believe that this legislation--and the original Violence Against Women Act--will continue to reduce the levels of violence committed by boyfriends and spouses and free women and their children from a life of abuse, and I am pleased to support its passage by the House today.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker I would like to take some time here this afternoon to talk about education in furtherance of the discussion we just had and the votes we have just had on the floor of the House of Representatives. In a time when education has risen to be the number one issue in all of the polls that we see across America, everyone is trying to take credit for what is happening in education, or to blame others. In reality, I do not think there is a man or woman on either side of this Chamber who would not want to, in some way, be able to help young people with education. Mr. Speaker, I like to believe very strongly that we on the Republican side have worked very, very hard to further this purpose, just as we did on the last vote, trying to take the same amount of money and giving flexibility to the States and local districts to make the decision about how to use the money and not mandate just school construction or just reduced class size. Similarly, we have been working very hard on the funding aspects of education. Indeed, as I indicated in our discussion earlier today, in the first 5 years of the last decade, with the Democrats in charge of the House of Representatives, the increase in funding for education was 6 percent per year. Basically, it was 6 percent in the 5 years the Democrats were in charge of the House, and when the Republicans took over, the increase has been 8.2 percent a year. Anyone who knows anything about mathematics and takes that 2.2 percent additional increase each year realizes how many dollars that amounts to. So there has been no shirking of the responsibility of Republicans with respect to education. But I think just as important have been some of the issues that underlie this. We have been very determined to help children with disabilities, to help with IDEA, the individuals with disabilities education act. They need particular help because, in some cases, it is particularly expensive to help those young people be educated. We have been concerned about quality. We have talked about quality effectiveness and results in education. We have talked about better teaching. In our classrooms today, particularly today with the technology and some of the problems in society, we need teachers who are competent and who are well trained and, in particular, who know their subject matter. We need accountability. As we are deregulating more Federal education programs and providing more flexibility, which we have been doing, we must ensure that Federal education programs produce real accountable results. We believe in local control. Ultimately, we have to make that decision, be it Washington State or Washington, D.C. or Wilmington, Delaware or some place around the United States of America, we need to give them the flexibility to do what they have to do in order to educate. We need to get dollars to the classroom. We have been pushing very hard to make sure that the appropriations which are done here go into the classrooms to help the young people get educated. Basic academics is important. No more fads or self-esteem approaches, perhaps new math, open classrooms, some of the things which have failed over the years. We need the basic academics, and we do need parental involvement and responsibility. I think all of us are aware that parents are often out of the house more because of the need for income, jobs, matters like that, but the bottom line is that we need to get parents as involved as we possibly can. We have been working very hard in order to get that done, and we have been providing the funding for this, and I think that is a significant point that needs to be made. There are a lot of areas we have been involved in: the Charter School Expansion Act; some real opportunities to educate differently, perhaps better; prohibiting new Federal taxes, for example; dealing with the Teacher Empowerment Act and the Student Result Act. These are all areas of building for education for young people across America. But there are other areas as well, and some are not necessarily connected to what Republicans do. One is called Head Start. Head Start is a very significant program that helps young people who may need a particular start in education to get up to the starting line equal. I like to believe that every kid in kindergarten at the age of 5 is going to be equal at that point if we can possibly help with that. And Republicans have been leading the way over the last few years with Head Start. Funding for this program has expanded by 106 percent since 1995. That is a tremendous increase. That is a real commitment, to take all of those children who may come from families or circumstances where they need some extra help and provide that extra help to them. At the same time, we are talking again about quality and not just quantity, and we are saying that those people who are in these Head Start programs, that is teaching and running them, should have the background to do that. Hopefully, they will be teachers or people on their way to a teaching degree so that they will have the advantages of knowing exactly how they can handle children. So we are working on that. And now half the people teaching in Head Start have a college degree. There is a balance, I think, between quality and expansion, which is going on here; and we think that is important as well. We think quality child care is important also. A great sum of money has been spent with respect to the area of helping with our children. Again, children are the future. Children are a precious commodity that we have to pay a great deal of attention to as Members of the Congress of the United States of America. Literacy is also important. And under the tutelage of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the retiring but extraordinarily talented chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, we have also addressed these issues. So there are many, many things which we have done with respect to education for which the Republican Party may take credit, as well as some Democrats may take credit. The bottom line is that we care a great deal about education. We have funded education and we want to make sure all those children have every opportunity possible.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to straighten out a few facts here. It is correct that the Federal Government only applies about 7 percent of the total financing of all K-12 education in the United States of America. But here is something else which is a fact. This is an absolute fact. In the first 5 years of the last decades, while the Democrats were in charge of the Congress of the United States of America and there was a Republican President and then a Democratic President, the increase for funding in education in the very budget that we are talking about here was 6 percent per year. In the last 5 years, not including this year, while Republicans have been in charge of the funding mechanism for education in the United States of America, the increase has been, on average, 8.2 percent per year, a difference of 2.2 percent. So I just want to put that little argument to rest. We are also ahead of the President's budget as far as this year is concerned. The real argument here is not funding. We could argue, for example, that we should help our children with disabilities, something that this Congress has many, many years through Democrats and even a little bit under the Republicans, but particularly the Democrats, has ignored, 11 percent of what should be a 40-percent commitment for example. We could argue that we need to help with construction. Indeed, $1.7 billion on a bill that is probably at least $400 billion, some say 300, some say 500, let us round it off to $400 billion, does not even begin to make a dent. That will still be done at the State and local level. So I have no problem with the additional funding. I have always supported the Federal role. I have always supported the Department of Education. I have always supported the increases in terms of the funding. But we passed last year an Education Flexibility Act to allow our local and State educational entities to be able to make decisions with respect to Federal funding and what they were going to do with it. We clearly demonstrated here, Republicans and Democrats alike I might add, we demonstrated that we wanted them to make a decision. We have in Title VI basically a flexible instrument, if you will, to help with education funding. And they can use Title VI, which truly is a block grant with very few limitations on it, right in line with education flexibility, they can use that for a variety of things. They can use it to reduce class size. That is hire more teachers, which the President wants to do and the Democrats want to do, I want to do, and I think Republicans want to do on this side. They can use it for school construction. Maybe that is needed someplace. Maybe it is not needed other places. Remember, some places do not need school construction, they need other things. Perhaps they need technology or they want more professional development of their teachers or they want to deal with problems of transportation or a variety of problems that comes with education naturally depending on where they are in the country. We want to give them that flexibility. We are not arguing about the money here at all on this floor today. We are arguing about the direction of the money. Should the Federal Government direct it for just class size reduction and for the issue of construction. So my view is that we should support that aspect of it which increases the funding and we should listen to our local people because they are the ones that say that they want the flexibility to be able to spend the money to help all children.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 1849, the ``White Clay Creek Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.'' I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation to designate officially White Clay Creek and its tributaries as part of the National Park Service's National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. This bill is the culmination of over 30 years of grassroots efforts to bring attention to the unique qualities of White Clay Creek and to build consensus to protecting its beauty from the adverse consequences of urban sprawl. White Clay Creek is located in the densely populated area between Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Newark, Delaware. White Clay Creek is well worth protecting. There are 38 properties in the watershed that have been listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In addition, the watershed is home to three endangered plant species and 100 more plant species of ``special concern'' to the State of Delaware. With regards to wildlife, the endangered bog turtle is found in the watershed along with 38 ``rare'' animal species on Delaware's list of ``special concern.'' Because the watershed is located in the middle of the Atlantic flyway, it is the northern boundary for many southern species of birds and the southern boundary for many northern species of birds. In total, there are about 200 bird species in the watershed, including the American bald eagle. In addition, White Clay Creek serves as a vital source of drinking water for New Castle County, Delaware and Chester County, Pennsylvania. Finally, White Clay Creek watershed is a popular location for fishing (particularly trout fishing), hiking, jogging, swimming, bird-watching, horseback riding, skating, sledding, cross-country skiing, photography, and limited deer hunting. In September 1999, the National Parks Service released its final report, as ordered by Congress in 1991, recommending the size and scope of the wild and scenic designation for White Clay Creek. The study confirmed the beliefs of the citizens living in the watershed that there was popular support for protecting the watershed's natural, historic, and recreational resources. In fact, 89 percent of the landowners surveyed agreed to support land use regulations and programs to conserve and protect the watershed. At the same time a majority believed that there must be room for planned residential, commercial, and industrial growth. Therefore, a White Clay Creek Task Force of private landowners, river-related organizations, and all levels of government developed the White Clay Creek Management Plan to designate a total of 191 miles, 24 miles as scenic and 167 miles as recreational, or White Clay Creek as suitable for the National Wild and Scenic River System. All fifteen of the local governments in the watershed, including the city of Newark and New Castle County, passed resolutions supporting the management plan. The designated scenic areas flow through the White Clay Creek Preserve and the White Clay Creek State Park. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to describe exactly what it means and what it does not mean for White Clay Creek to be designated wild an scenic. This bill means that the river receives permanent protection from federally-licensed or assisted water resource projects (dams, diversions, channelization, etc.) that would have a direct and adverse effect on its free-flowing condition or outstanding remarkable resources. It does not mean that existing wastewater treatment plants or potential reservoir sites cannot be expanded to accommodate carefully planned residential, commercial, and industrial growth. New Castle County is actively seeking solutions to water shortage problems, and this bill does not limit options that are in the best interests of the citizens of Delaware. This legislation does not replace the authority of state, county, and municipal governments to regulate land use in the watershed. It simply prohibits Federal funds from being used to interfere with the free-flowing nature of the river or its unique resources. In doing so, it elevates the status of the river in competing for Federal preservations grants. Finally, it mobilizes the states, local governments, and communities in the watershed to work together to preserve this unique, free flowing river. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge House Resources Committee Chairman, Don Young; Parks Subcommittee Chairman, Jim Hansen; Resources Committee Staff, Tod Hull; my colleague, Joe Pitts; National Parks Staff, Chuck Barscz; and all the citizens in Delaware and Pennsylvania who have worked for over 30 years to protect White Clay Creek. Mr. Speaker, I believe the combination of White Clay Creek Watershed's unique features and the strong local support for protecting the watershed justify its designation as a wild and scenic river. The Senate passed companion legislation by unanimous consent on April 13, 2000. I urge my colleagues to give their strong support to this bill.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer a few remarks about this bill. As the author of the original 50 State quarter legislation in 1996, I have taken a keen interest in the administration and potential expansion of the 50 State quarter program. I am proud to support the expansion of the quarter program to the District of Columbia and the U.S. Territories. I think this bill can best be understood in the context of the legislative history of the original 50 State quarter program. When I first proposed the 50 State quarter legislation, I was met with a lot of resistance from the administration, which had serious misgivings about how the program would be received by the public. They wanted to downgrade the bill to a study. Fortunately, it has been a huge success. All one has to do is turn on the television to see dozens of ads selling State quarters and fancy maps to display them. In fact, our biggest problem with the program is that people cannot get their hands on the quarters fast enough. That will continue to be an issue that I will press with the mint and the Federal Reserve. Because there had been so much concern in the Administration about whether or not the quarter program would be well received, Congress limited it to the 50 States. Now, I think even the most skeptical observers would agree that the program should be extended to the District of Columbia and the U.S. Territories without hesitation or delay. This is not a two-bit piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this legislation today.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3222, the Literacy Involves Families Together Act, legislation to ensure that every child and every adult has literacy skills they need to succeed. I also want to take a moment to commend the bill's sponsor, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling). As some of us may know, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) was the driving force behind the National Literacy Act and he changed the way children learn to read with the enactment of the Reading Excellence Act. Mr. Speaker, once again the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) is leading the charge to create a more literate society with the reauthorization of the Even Start Family Illiteracy Program, a bill he helped offer nearly 12 years ago. Like the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), I believe that the literacy skills of America's adults are simply not adequate to encourage individual opportunity, increase worker productivity, or strengthen our country's competitiveness around the world. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, approximately 21 percent of the adult population, more than 40 million Americans over the age of 16, has only rudimentary reading and writing skills. An additional 8 million adults were unable to perform the most basic literacy test and a smaller percentage had such limited skills that they were unable to even respond to the survey. Sadly, studies show that illiteracy is an intergenerational problem, one that follows a parent-child pattern. Students who have not been exposed to reading before they enter school are at a significant disadvantage when compared with students whose parents read to them. In addition, students with illiterate parents are more likely to perform poorly in school, and they are more likely to drop out before graduation. The bill before us today, the Literacy Involves Family Together Act seeks to remedy these problems by improving the quality of services provided under the Even Start Family Literacy Program. Specifically, LIFT would require Even Start programs to base reading instruction on scientifically based research. As part of the National Reading Panel, the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development has conducted extensive research on the best way to teach children to read, and I believe it is of utmost importance for our literacy centers to make use of this data. LIFT would also fund a research project to find the most effective way to improve literacy among parents and reading difficulties and to help parents use their new skills to support their children's redevelopment. Finally, the LIFT act raises the quality of family literacy programs to allow States to use a portion of their Even Start dollars to provide expert training and technical assistance to Even Start providers and family literacy instructors. We live in a Nation where both the volume and variety of written information are growing and where increasing numbers of citizens are expected to be able to read, understand, and use these materials. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) for his leadership and wish him a long and enjoyable retirement.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I too as others have done today rise in strong support of the gentlewoman from Connecticut's and the gentleman from Maryland's Child Support Distribution Act of 2000. This legislation improves on the success of the child support enforcement measures enacted in the historic 1996 welfare reform bill, a bill which itself has dramatically reduced welfare dependency and afforded real opportunity where once there was none. I want to focus my comments on a particular section of the bill that I introduced as H.R. 4071, the Child Support Fairness and Federal Tax Refund Interception Act to modernize the Federal tax refund offset program. The Federal tax refund offset program is the second most effective way of collecting back child support, accounting for one- third of all back child support collected. But current law limits this program to parents who are on public assistance or parents with children who are still minors or parents with disabled adult children. My provision expands the eligibility for this program to parents with children regardless of their age or disability status. A constituent of mine, Lisa McCave, of Wilmington, Delaware, wrote me a compelling letter last summer advocating for this change in the law. She had to stand by and watch a $2,426 Federal tax refund go to her husband in Georgia even though he owed her nearly $7,000 in back child support just because her son was no longer a minor. As she said in her letter to me, ``We must be able to get all moneys available toward paying child support in arrearage no matter if the child has become an adult when the arrearage is being paid. We should not have to make our children do without necessaries nor should we have to work two and three jobs to make up for an irresponsible, noncontributing parent.'' On behalf of Lisa McCave and other single parents like her, these artificial barriers should be torn down. A noncustodial parent should not be able to escape their child support responsibilities by playing a waiting game until their child is 18. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for their leadership on this issue and urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce legislation that I believe will vastly improve the quality, relevance, and objectivity of education research, program evaluations and statistical analyses supported through federal funds. Educators and policymakers must have unbiased, reliable and responsive information to prepare our Nation's children for the challenges of this new century. Unfortunately, the federal government does not have a system in place to ensure that education research and other information is available to those that need it most--our teachers. At the same time, our states and school districts are adopting new accountability measures designed to hold teachers and students to new, higher standards of academic achievement, For these reasons, the need to know what works and what does not has never been greater. Unfortunately, educators and policymakers have grown wary of education programs and practices that claim to be the ``silver bullet'' to improve student academic achievement until they fall out of favor with the community and a new fad comes along. As a result, schools find themselves blindly following a path they hope will lead to increased academic achievement without knowing if these programs are based on actual scientific research or just a hunch. Unfortunately, these fads not only fail to improve student academic achievement--they can actually be harmful to student learning. To date, the federal government has done little to lessen this confusion and, in many cases, it has actually made things worse. Just last year, an ``expert panel'' convened by the U.S. Department of Education endorsed ten K-12 math programs as ``promising or exemplary.'' Subsequently, two hundred mathematicians and scientists from leading universities sent a letter of protest to the department because of what they felt were ``serious mathematical shortcomings'' in the endorsed programs. In fact, these experts were so concerned, they placed full-page advertisements in the nation's leading newspapers. In their collective expert opinion, mathematics instruction would be severely ``dumbed down'' if these particular programs were implemented in our Nation's schools. Despite their concerns, the programs--which lack rigorous scientific examination to validate their claims--continue to be widely disseminated to schools across the country by the Department of Education. Not surprisingly, the dissemination of unproven or ineffective programs is not a new problem. From 1967 to 1976, the federal government managed the largest education experiment ever conducted in the United States--comparing more than twenty different teacher approaches on more than 70,000 students in more than 180 schools. At the end of the study, all of the programs, those that were successful and those that failed, were recommended for distribution to school districts. In fact, some of these programs, even those that were considered a failure in the study, were rated as ``exemplary and effective.'' While the wide dissemination of programs that have not been validated through scientific research is one problem--the lack of quality in research is also a major concern. Recently, Congress established a National Reading Panel to evaluate existing research on the most effective approaches for teaching children to read. The panel examined more than 100,000 federally funded studies on reading--some written as far back as 1966. After an exhaustive review, the panel concluded that, of the 100,000 studies, only 10,000 met their standards for academic and scientific rigor. Simply put, we can no longer tolerate flawed research that fails our children. For this reason, my legislation seeks to ensure the quality and integrity of the federal government's research, evaluation, and statistical activities. Specifically, the ``The Scientifically-Based Education Research, Evaluation, Statistics and Information Act of 2000'' provides clear standards and definitions for the extent of rigor that must be undertaken when conducting education research, evaluation and statistics with federal funds. Under this Act, the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (currently located within the Department of Education) would be eliminated and replaced with a new national academy that provides the infrastructure for the undertaking of coordinated and high quality educational research, statistics gathering, program evaluation, and information dissemination. The academy would be separate from the Department of Education or any other federal agency as a means of ensuring its activities are carried out with the greatest degree of independence and integrity. This academy would house three main centers, the National Center for Education Research, the National Center for Program Evaluation and Development, and the National Center for Education Statistics, as well as the National Education Library and Clearinghouse Office. The National Center for Education Research, which would replace the five existing education institutes, would focus on a limited number of research priorities designed to address educational issues of national importance. Of course, all research funded by the center would be required to meet the rigorous requirements of ``scientifically valid research'' as defined in the legislation. Next, the National Center for Program Evaluation and Development would provide truly independent program evaluations designed specifically to determine what works and what does not. Currently, the Department of Education is charged with evaluating its own programs and it does not have the incentive to dedicate the resources necessary to conduct high quality evaluations that are able to demonstrate whether programs are actually working. Finally, the legislation places the existing National Center for Educational Statistics under the academy and outside of the Department of Education. The bill also makes slight changes to the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB), which would be given full authority to develop the policy and carry out the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). As I mentioned earlier, the academy would also house the National Education Library and Clearinghouse Office, which would be responsible for collecting, archiving and disseminating all research, statistics and evaluations undertaken within the agency as well as other education-related materials from other federal agencies and research institutions. This would replace the current maze of federal education clearinghouses that span the Office of Educational Research Improvement and the Department of Education. In addition to the activities carried out under the new academy, the Department of Education would house an Office of Planning, Performance Measurement, and Technical Assistance, combining the existing functions of several different offices within the department. In addition to short-term evaluations, the office would oversee the implementation of a performance measurement system to measure the quality of education programs. The office would also oversee a regionally-based grant program which combines funds currently directed to Regional Educational Laboratories, Comprehensive Centers, Regional Technology Centers, and a portion of the funds under the Eisenhower Math and Science Consortium currently used for technical assistance. Each region of the country, as designated by the director of the office, would convene a governing board to determine its unique priorities and to develop a plan for disseminating educational research, providing technical assistance, and carrying out applied research projects. Finally, the office would oversee a state-based grant program to provide high-need schools the opportunity to select their own providers of high quality technical assistance. Mr. Speaker, by holding education research, evaluations and statistics to new standards of rigor, improving the focus of these activities so they are relevant to the needs of educators and policymakers, and laying the framework for the dissemination of high quality, scientifically valid information--we will improve the education of our nation's children. I hope Members will join me in support of this important initiative and the historic shift that it represents.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Colonel Francis G. Mahon. Colonel Mahon was born in Northport, New York, the son of Mr. and Mrs. Paul G. Mahon. He was commissioned at the University of Delaware in 1979 when he graduated with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Accounting. In 1988, he completed a Master of Science Degree in Systems Technology. His Military education includes the Air Defense Artillery Basic Course, the Armor Officers Advanced Course, the Combined Arms Services Staff School, the United States Army Command and General Staff College, and the Army War College at Carlisle Barracks, Carlisle, PA. Colonel Mahon has served in many key assignments, including Chaparral Platoon Leader and Battery Executive Officer of Battery C, 4th Battalion, 61st Air Defense Artillery, 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Carson, CO; Battery Executive Officer of Battery D, 2nd Battalion, 61st Air Defense Artillery; Assistant S-3, 2nd Battalion, 61st Air Defense Artillery, and Battery Commander, Battery B, 2nd Battalion, 61st Air Defense Artillery, 2nd Infantry Division, Republic of Korea; Chief of Intelligence Branch, C31 Division, USAADASCH Directorate of Combat Developments, Fort Bliss, Texas; Battalion Operations Officer, 5th Battalion, 7th Air Defense Artillery, Bitburg Germany; Brigade Operations Officer, 94th Air Defense Artillery Brigade, Kaiserslautern, Germany; Commanding Officer, 3rd Battalion (PATRIOT), 43rd Air Defense Artillery; and Missile Defense Planner, Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, The Pentagon, Virginia. Colonel Mahon will begin Command of the 11th Air Defense Artillery Brigade, Fort Bliss, Texas, on July 13, 2000. His awards and decorations include the Meritorious Service Medal with three Oak Leaf Clusters, the Army Commendation Medal with three Oak Leaf Clusters, and the Army Superior Unit Award with one Oak Leaf Cluster. Colonel Mahon is married to the former Elizabeth Cecelia McGowan, daughter of Todd and Elizabeth McGowan of Wilmington, Delaware. They have four children, Elizabeth Anne (12), Kathleen Margaret (8), Mary Frances (6) and Francis Todd (3). Colonel Mahon has worked for more than 20 years in service to his community and nation. I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in congratulating and thanking Colonel Mahon and his family for their dedicated service to the United States of America. We wish him much success as he begins his new command.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, tonight the House of Representatives has the opportunity to ensure that meaningful campaign finance reform is passed in time for this year's election. H.R. 4762 is the campaign finance bill with the best chance to pass both Chambers and be signed into law that has reached the floor in years. Last week, when I testified before the Ways and Means Committee, I said that I would help lead the fight to pass legislation that would rein in the section 527 groups if the House could not pass more comprehensive disclosure legislation. I will do so tonight. In this case, we cannot afford to make the perfect the enemy of the good. Section 527 organizations, set up under section 527 of the Tax Code, are established to engage in political activities, which influence our political process by funding election-related communications without having to disclose their donors. H.R. 4762 is needed because current campaign laws are wholly unable to adequately regulate the torrent of political advertising by groups exploiting this loophole in both our tax and election laws. Huge sums of money are being spent to influence the election system. While spending by individuals has been protected by Supreme Court rulings and the problem of soft money continues because a lack of will by Congress to address it, we now have a troubling new trend in campaign finance spending by groups operating under unique designations in our tax code such as section 527. While I would have liked to cover more groups engaging in electioneering communications, I am pleased that we will have the opportunity to pass significant legislation that will tackle the 527 stealth political organization problem. I worked very hard with my colleagues in both the House and Senate to develop broader legislation. I extend my thanks to Senators McCain, Snowe, Lieberman, and Feingold, and Representatives Houghton, Shays, Graham, Meehan, and Doggett for their efforts. We explored many possible alternatives, and I believe that we have laid the groundwork for further legislation in this area. Tonight we will vote on H.R. 4762, language taken from Senator John McCain's legislation, which has already passed the Senate. This legislation requires section 527 organizations, that have gross receipts of more than $25,000 dollars, to disclose their top donors. Whether or not we agree with the message of any advertisement campaign, I hope we can agree that voters have the right to know who is paying for any campaign-related ad and who is trying to influence their vote. Our Constitution protects every American's right to be heard. Yet today, more than ever, voters are faced with new-style political organizations, operating free from coverage by Federal election law, that are spending millions on campaign ads without having to disclose their donors. The 2000 general election cycle is fast approaching and section 527 political groups are expanding at a rapid pace and could be a dominant force in the 2000 election. I am convinced this bill will curb some of the most blatant abuses, and will allow the public to know who is supporting these groups that are now operating behind a veil of secrecy. I urge you to join me in supporting H.R. 4762 in an effort to restore integrity to our election process and return the election process to the American people. It is a real step forward, and we should take it.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I also credit the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for the tremendous work which he did, along with other Members in the House of Representatives and in the United States Senate who have been involved with this. Tonight the House of Representatives has the opportunity to ensure that meaningful campaign finance reform is passed in time for this year's election. H.R. 4762 is the campaign finance bill with the best chance to pass both Chambers and be signed into law that has reached the floor of this House in years. Mr. Speaker, last week when I testified before the Committee on Ways and Means, I said that I would help lead the fight to pass legislation that would reign in the section 527 groups if the House could not pass more comprehensive disclosure legislation. I will do that tonight. In this case, we cannot afford to make the perfect, the enemy of the good. Section 527 organizations set up under section 527 of the Tax Code are established to engage in political activities which influence our political process by funding an election-related communications without having to disclose their donors. H.R. 4762 is needed because current campaign laws are wholly unable to adequately regulate the torrent of political advising by groups exploiting this loophole in both our taxation and election laws. Huge sums of money are being spent to influence the election system. This is a troubling new trend in campaign-finance spending by groups operating under unique designations in our Tax Code such as section 527. Mr. Speaker, while I would have liked to cover more groups engaging in electioneering communications, I am pleased that we will pass significant legislation that will tackle the 527 stealth political organization problem. We explored many possible alternatives, and I believe we have laid the groundwork for further legislation in this area. Tonight we will vote on H.R. 4762 language taken from Senator John McCain's legislation which has already passed the Senate. This legislation requires section 527 organizations that have gross receipts of more than $25,000 to disclose their donors. Whether or not we agree with the message of any advertisement campaign, I hope we can agree that voters have the right to know who is paying for any campaign-related ad and who is trying to influence their vote. The 2000 general election cycle is fast approaching, and section 527 political groups are expanding at a rapid pace that will be a dominant force in the 2000 election. Mr. Speaker, I am convinced this bill will curb some of the most blatant abuses and will allow the public to know who is supporting these groups that are now operating behind a veil of secrecy. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting H.R. 4762 in an effort to restore integrity to our election process and return the election process to the American people. It is a real step forward, and we should take it.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I would point out to my colleagues than there are three States involved in this. The State of Delaware actually runs the whole length of this Delaware River and our State, at this moment, at least, opposes this particular measure to dig this channel deeper, and we support the Andrews amendment. There are various reasons for that. One could argue waste or whatever it may be, because this is an expensive project. But in Delaware, we are trying to determine the environmental impact, as has been stated by several speakers here, whether it will cause undue harm to Delaware's natural resources. Last year I supported funding because it moved the process forward and we could find out more. Then we tried to work with the Army Corps of Engineers in the course of this year, and the Army Corps of Engineers and our Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control began negotiations about how the environment would be guaranteed: would it be through a State permit or some memorandum of agreement. It is my opinion that the forum is not as important as the substance. Any agreement needs to be mutually acceptable, legally enforceable, and allow for meaningful public participation. Mr. Chairman, I had hoped that I would be able to come to the floor tonight saying these conditions have been met, but I cannot do that; they have not been met. Given the lack of assurances from the Corps to my State's environmental agency, I cannot support funding for this project this year, and that is exactly what the gentleman from New Jersey's amendment does, it delays it for a year. I think the wiser course of action today is to delay funding for actual dredging until this issue is resolved. In fact, many in my State thought that that was the Corps' position too. This spring, a Corps spokesman stated to the Delaware press that the Corps had all the necessary permits, and it had addressed all of the environmental concerns created by the dredging project. The very next day the Corps reversed itself and stated that we are not going to start dredging without resolving the permit issues first, admitting they did not have it resolved. Sadly, a few weeks ago when I gave the Corps the opportunity to support my efforts to put their promise in writing and delay actual dredging funds, they declined. Mr. Chairman, it is no wonder citizens in Delaware do not trust the economic justifications and environmental propositions the Corps makes. It is no wonder our Department of Natural Resources insists on a legally enforceable agreement with the Corps. I know we all hope the DNREC, our environmental people and the Corps can reach a mutually acceptable, legally enforceable agreement before the fiscal year 2001 begins; but until that time, I urge the House to withhold funding for this project.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, as the individual who heads the subject matter of K through 12 education, the Committee on Education and the Workforce, there are a few figures we need to trot out here in the overall understanding of what we are doing. One figure is simply this: In the five previous years, including two Presidents, the Republicans have put an increase of 48.2 percent in education funding K through 12, or 8.2 percent per year. In the 5 years before that, when the Democrats were in charge of the Congress under two Presidents at that time, the total was 32.9 percent or 6 percent a year, a lesser percentage than the Republicans have been putting in, in the last 5 years. There are a lot of reasons for this: A President who cares about education; a Congress which cares about education; both parties which care about education, but we need to be very careful in saying who is slighting education because the last 5 years have been the highest increases in K through 12 education in the history of the Congress of the United States. Now we get to the issue of school construction here. There is a lot of room for expenditures. That is being done in this budget, as in other budgets. We also can, frankly, afford some of the tax cuts that have been talked about and debt retirement. I understand we are probably going to have an extra trillion dollars here very shortly. The real issue is what are we supposed to be doing about this? I know when I was a governor, we fought hard to reduce the size of the classrooms in K through 3 because we thought that was so important, but we also fought hard for school construction; mostly done at the State level. That indeed is a State function, something which we thought a great deal about in terms of what we had to do. Yet in Delaware, a State which has, according to all the studies, relatively good schools, we need a billion dollars for new schools. If we take that and extrapolate that over 435 congressional districts because that is just one congressional district, that is $435 billion. If we put together a program like that, it is probably $500 billion. Others will say it is $300 billion. In the event, that is the low. I would say it is something higher than that. We are talking here about $1.3 billion. Maybe if it can be leveraged, some more; but if it is leveraged, money is owed. So even if one gets to $7 billion, they are talking about an absolute drop in the bucket. That is the problem with this. We are buying into a program which is a State and local responsibility, with a very small sum of money, so that we can stand up politically and say that we have solved the problems of construction of our schools. This does not even begin to do that. We all need to understand it and, in my judgment, it probably should not be a Federal responsibility. If it is, let us look at what the Federal Government has mandated or facilitated to the States, including dealing with IDEA, dealing with technology, dealing with safety, dealing with the OSHA requirements, whatever it may be. Maybe in that area we could do something but, in my judgment, an open-ended construction bill is not the way to go, and we need to be very careful about this. We need to have further discussions. Perhaps something can be done, but I do not think this is the solution right now.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I alluded to this earlier, but I think it is very important to understand where we are with respect to spending on education in terms of both political parties. Basically what this chart shows is a period of time starting with 1990 as a base year that shows the years of 1991 through 1995, in which there was a Republican President and there was a Democrat president. We also had a Democrat Congress during that period of time. It shows what all those expenditures are. The important thing to understand in all this is that the average increase during that period of time was 6 percent in K through 12 spending. Six percent. What is K through 12? It includes Goals 2000, school to work, ESEA, and vocational education. For a total of a $32.9 percent increase. In that year, in that particular election, Republicans took over control of the Congress of the United States. And the statistics since that time, with the same Democrat President who was President during a couple of those years before, has been average annual increases in K through 12 education of 8.2 percent. Six percent versus 8.2 percent, or an overall increase of 48.2 percent. Now, I say all this because we had a whole evening last night, a whole discussion of the rule last week as well as discussion today in which the basic message has been that the Republicans are sacrificing education because, A, they do not want to spend or, B, they want to give tax cuts to whomever, the wealthy or whomever it may be. The bottom line is that the totals show that Republicans have done more for education in 5 years while in control of the House and Senate, in this Congress, than in any other 5-year period of time, probably in the history industry of the Congress of the United States of America. Now, I will be the first to say that there is a presidential influence, and there are many other things which are out there, but this is not a Congress which has exactly shirked its responsibilities with respect to K through 12 education. I am a total believer that that is, of all the programs that we have that could help people, K through 12 education is the one that could help the most. I also believe it is a State and local responsibility, but there is some Federal responsibility. We see it in IDEA, we see it in title I and in a variety of programs that we need to support here, and I believe that we are supporting them. I am going to borrow the chart of the gentleman from Florida for just a moment, which also shows something else, and that is where we have gone with respect to the subject of this amendment in that special education funding. It shows a tremendous increase by dollars and by percentage since Republicans have taken over control of the Congress of the United States. The very subject matter of this amendment. This amendment, by the way, is empty. This amendment will probably be stricken down on a point of order. The bottom line is that Republicans have come through on the funding for special education.

Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 8, the ``Death Tax Elimination Act of 2000.'' This legislation pursues an admirable goal--a return to the principle of single taxation. Taxing the event of death makes little economic sense. It causes small businesses and farms to close or partially liquidate their assets to pay this tax, which can be as high as 55 percent. In turn, that leads to job loss for the employees of the business. Therefore, the benefits of this legislation flow to far more people than just business owners and their families. Unfortunately, some taxes are a necessary evil. No modern, industrialized society can provide roads, a judicial system, or care for the needs of the poorest among us based on the goodwill and philanthropy of individual citizens. Yet, that does not give the Federal Government license to tax everything. By phasing out the death tax, a business' assets are still subject to taxation, just not double taxation. They are subject to capital gains tax when the next generation makes an informed, rationale business decision to sell the assets. This causes much less disruption in business operations and often allows employees to keep their jobs. My only hesitation with this legislation is its potential impact on the budget. Earlier this year, the Congressional Budget Office projected a 10-year budget surplus of $888 billion assuming that discretionary spending increases at the rate of inflation. I am convinced that conservative economists, such as the Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, are correct that paying down the national debt should be a high priority. This year, the House of Representatives has passed $180 billion in marriage tax penalty relief over the next 10 years, $123 billion in small business tax relief to accompany an increase in the minimum wage, and $23 billion in repealing the Social Security Earnings limit that punished working seniors. Because the first five years of death tax relief in this bill were already included in the small business tax relief package, the additional cost of this bill is $41 billion. In total, the House has passed $367 billion in tax relief, which does not endanger the budget surplus. As this legislation moves to the Senate and negotiations with the Clinton Administration begin, I will be paying close attention to the budgetary impact of a comprehensive tax package, and I will work to ensure we have a balanced, fiscally responsible package. Mr. Speaker, I urge you to work closely with the Senate and the Clinton Administration to arrive at a balanced tax package that provides tax relief for our family farms and small businesses.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this most important trade agreement. Failure by this Congress to extend PNTR would squander a decade and a half of negotiations, invite the unraveling of China's extensive WTO commitments, and punish American businesses and farmers by shutting them out of the world's biggest emerging market for the foreseeable future. The best way to encourage the type of behavior we desire is through policies that promote the rule of law, free trade, economic reform, and democratization. For these are the seeds from which democracy can grow. Therefore, I believe we should continue to pursue our historic and longstanding policy of engagement rather than containment. Vote for this legislation.